To the Editor:
Although he desires not to "enter the current debate," my friend Roland Goodbody has done just that by responding to my most recent letter. Mr. Goodbody, in directing my attention to the dictionary, seems to agree with Ms. Todd that my language in previous letters was "inflammatory." He assures us that the definition of this word "has nothing to do with accurate or inaccurate usage."
I wonder, however, whether Mr. Goodbody had in fact read the previous letter of Ms. Mariano, which criticized UNH Students for Life for using the word "violence" to describe abortion. Had he done so, he would understand both the necessity of turning to the dictionary as an arbiter of meaning, and as a way to determine whether UNH Students for Life had used the word accurately or not. Mr. Goodbody may believe that "reliance on a dictionary is not very helpful," but then perhaps Mr. Goodbody will suggest some other efficient way to resolve differences about the objective meaning of disputed words. Take away such a common linguistic authority and we end up with dead Iraqi children described as "collateral damage," and child molestation defined as "inter-generational love." Abortion is either violent, or it is not. In my view, knowing the common definition of the word "violent" would seem to be quite important in deciding.
Mr. Goodbody also suggests that in raising moral questions about abortion, I engaged in language that was "fiery, incendiary, provocative, tending to arouse anger, hostility, passion, etc." (thereby ignoring his own maxim that "reliance on a dictionary is not very helpful"). How people respond to moral questions is really beyond my control. Shall we never raise a question about the morality of war, consumerism, adultery, environmental pollution, corporate corruption, human trafficking, government duplicity, torture, or any other issue because we fear someone might get angry, or someone might respond with hostility? Or, is it only that Mr. Goodbody objects to raising moral questions about the particular issue of abortion?
Apparently it is the latter, for he questions my moral position on this issue. For Mr. Goodbody's benefit, then, let me be clear. I do believe the sanctity of human life is a moral absolute. I do think human life is always sacred. I do think the sanctity of human life should be the underlying moral principle for all our public deliberations, not merely on abortion, but on war, on armament sales, on poverty, on the death penalty, on health care, and on the environment. As Mr. Goodbody points out, "Life is either always sacred or it is not." I would add, it is either sacred in all these contexts, or it is not. However, guided by the moral relativism he apparently prefers, it would be "life is sometimes sacred, and sometimes it is not." Which of you will assume the power to decide whose life is not worth living?
James Farrell Associate Professor Dept. of Communications Advisor to UNH Students for Life
Be the first to comment on this article!